Can try this next. Was using 3.0.15, but that wouldn't even connect to a 4.1 database. =\
On 6/22/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick, > > can you still switch to 3.0.16, as I remember upgrading within the 3.0.x > series caused problems as well. > > Werner > > Nick Stuart wrote: > > Good advice and thanks, and the latest tests I've just done are all > > with the 3.0.17 drivers, so the 3.1.x driver issues aren't coming into > > play. I'm just really wondering why /how castor is acting different > > internally when it really shouldn't matter. (note, not blaming castor > > because I dont think thats the issue) > > > > -Nick > > > > On 6/22/05, Werner Guttmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nick, > > > > mySQL's Connector/J isn't really a stable environment to work with, > > given the number of exciting hours I have wasted to debug assumed Castor > > issues that turned out to be incompatibilities between driver releases. > > > > Personally, I am using mySQL as my main development platform, and I have > > got three installations on there PCs (switching between them all time). > > Here's a brief summary of what I learned. > > > > a) Using mySQL server release 4.0.x or 4.1.x is fine. I have once tried > > to use mySQL 5.0 with Castor, but quickly ran into issues I believe are > > a result of being too early. > > b) When using mySQL server 4.x.y, make sure you don't use Connector/J > > 3.1.x, as it does cause problems in some areas (most noticeably around > > prepared statements and column result types). > > c) In other words, with mySQL server 4.x.y, use Connector/J 3.0.16 > > unless there something broken that you require to be fixed. So far, I > > still have to run into problems with 3.0.16, but let's knock on wood. > > > > Regards > > Werner > > > > Nick Stuart wrote: > > > >>Ok, found an odd one here. Nothing to do with Castor, but I think it > >>should be known. I'm using mysql 4.1.11 on my laptop here for dev > >>purposes, and there seems to be a problem with the reported fields > >>coming back from mysql. > > > >>In SQLEngine around line 963 (the for loop) I get the following exception: > > > >>Caused by: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 6 > >> at org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine.store(SQLEngine.java:964) > >> at org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine.store(SQLEngine.java:826) > >> at org.exolab.castor.persist.ClassMolder.store(ClassMolder.java:1622) > >> at org.exolab.castor.persist.LockEngine.store(LockEngine.java:760) > >> at > >> org.exolab.castor.persist.TransactionContext.prepare(TransactionContext.java:1598) > >> ... 47 more > > > >>The following SQL is being generated: > >>SELECT > >>prjsystems.systemName,prjsystems.zipCode,prjsystems.projectId,prjsystems.sized,prjsystems.metric,prjsiteinfo.id > >>FROM prjsystems LEFT OUTER JOIN prjsiteinfo ON > >>prjsystems.id=prjsiteinfo.systemId WHERE prjsystems.id=? > > > >>which correctly shows the 6 fields needed for StdSystem (not sure why > >>the join is there but it is). Anyways, I threw some extra logging in > >>there and got this: > > > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Got a total of 22 to check/store. > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for systemName > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for zipCode > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for projectId > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for sized > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for metric > >> DEBUG http-8084-Processor22 org.exolab.castor.jdo.engine.SQLEngine - > >>Getting field value for id > >><exception here> > > > >>Whats odd is the 22 there is from fields.length, thats how many fields > >>are reported as being needed/returned...hmm, thats not quite right!! I > >>dont think this is a connector/j issue. Tried both 3.1 and 3.0 series, > >>both with the same results. AND if I change the config around to use > >>another database, it works perfectly fine (all the same libs/src > >>everything)! > > > >> Anyone else seen any thing like this?!? Guess its time to update > >>MySQL on my laptop. :( > > > >>-Nick > > > >>------------------------------------------------- > >>If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > >>send an empty message to the following address: > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > > send an empty message to the following address: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please > send an empty message to the following address: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------- If you wish to unsubscribe from this list, please send an empty message to the following address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------
